Reena Basser reviews the bestselling book, “Lean In: Women, Work, and the Will to Lead,” by Sheryl Sandberg with Nell Scovell (2013). Basser finds the book’s message resonates with women in the legal profession.
I hate self-help books. I hate self-help books for women. I hate self-help books for women by those highly successful people. You know where I’m going.
Sandberg really shines when she discusses the females in her firm: smart engineers (typically) who want to know how to “do it all.” Lean In breaks the false idealized image of the “supermom” and explains how to limit oneself, how to set boundaries but mostly how to make work matter. Sandberg advises: Take that important promotion when you are seven months pregnant; work from home at times; and don’t deny yourself the opportunity because you MIGHT have a family that MIGHT need you.
With reporting and reconciliation season upon us, paralegals’ thoughts naturally turn to better ways to keep track of financials and case matters. These days, those issues include the cloud.
A group of Ontario-based paralegals gathered on January 18 to get educated on what cloud-based practice management is, and how products such as uLawPractice can help to ensure compliance with regulations around proper financial reporting.
Held at the North York Library Auditorium, the free “lunch & learn” covered the basics of what cloud technology is, and how it can make routine but necessary tasks easier, while helping to ensure compliance with the Law Society’s financial reporting requirements. Presented by the Ontario Paralegal Network, the information session targeted solo and small legal services providers who worry about practice audits. Proper bookkeeping is not the main reason paralegals got into the field, but failing to meet minimum standards can have severe consequences. This is among the pain points that uLaw seeks to alleviate.
Paralegal Karen Fair summarizes a case in which an application was dismissed by the Human Rights Tribunal.
The Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario (HRTO) reiterates jurisdiction rules in Toker v. 1044765 Ontario Inc., 2014 HRTO 1159 (CanLII). The tribunal found that, where an applicant makes the same claim regarding human rights violations requesting the same remedies in civil proceedings as in a HRTO application, the application to the HRTO is outside its jurisdiction if it meets the requirements of section 34(11) of the Human Rights Code. The intent of section 34(11) is to prevent duplicate court and Tribunal proceedings.
In this case, the applicant raised the same facts and issues in both his statement of claim and his application to the HRTO. The applicant alleged that he experienced panic attacks stemming from his disability and stated that his mistreatment at work partly triggered panic attacks. He alleged that his employer dismissed him without cause because he had to leave early as a result of a panic attack. Further, the applicant requested damages for the violation of the Human Rights Code in his statement of claim.
Writing for the HRTO, David Muir, Vice-chair, found that “the requirements of section 34(11) are met here in that a civil proceeding has been commenced where damages are sought for alleged violations of the Code and that proceeding has not been finally determined, withdrawn or settled. For these reasons the Application is dismissed.”
- Reminder: OHSA coverage extended to unpaid co-op students, other unpaid learners, trainee
- Worker killed while inflating a tire; Athens, Ont. Company fined $70,000 for failing to protect a worker, under OHSA
- Addiction to drugs and alcohol are disabilities. Addicts lie. Employers must accommodate addictions. Arbitrator reinstates rail conductor who had lied about his cocaine use during an accident investigation.
- Workplace violence is not just cause for termination
- Target, media narratives & employment law – Legal issues as the retailer high-tails it back south of the border
- Supreme Court Canada will not hear challenge from retailers over debit card swipe fees
- Lawyer launches constitutional challenge of Ontario government’s recent auto insurance changes
- Yukon francophones take French school board appeal to Supreme Court Canada
- CBSA to end controversial return program for failed refugee claimants
- Confidential hotline for TFWs
- Shocking experience for Toronto election candidate –“People wrote ‘Bitch’ and ‘Go back home’ on campaign signs”
- Nova Scotia flavoured tobacco survey draws 1K responses in 48 hours
- Ontario rent increase guideline based on Consumer Price Index – What does this mean?
- A deal is a deal: Jan Wong v. Globe & Mail
- “Work now, grieve later” principle applied; fair representation claim dismissed — Truong v UNIFOR Canada, Local 40, 2014 CanLII 77019 (ON LRB)
- Legislation does not supersede Common Law; LSUC defence of absolute privilege succeeds in defamation suit appeal — D’Mello v. The Law Society of Upper Canada, 2014 ONCA 912 (CanLII)
- When is a search incidental to investigative detention, and therefore lawful? R. v. Peterkin, 2015 ONCA 8
- Municipal duty to repair roads; Can a “STOP” sign be merely a suggestion?
- Former lawyer’s claim against the Law Society, a former justice minister, and others, is dismissed as “Frivolous, vexatious, scandalous, embarrassing, and an abuse of process of the court. “No one should have to spend money responding and no further court resources should be utilized for this matter.” Nolan v. LSUC, 2014 ONSC 7196 (CanLII)
- “Fearless and zealous representation” versus “efficient and affordable justice”: Justice Myers weighs in on claims, counterclaims and delays — Unimac v. Cobra Power Inc., 2014 ONSC 7245 (CanLII)
- Privilege: Municipal councillors cannot hide behind privilege for defamatory statements made in council chambers — Gutowski v. Clayton, 2014 ONCA 921 (CanLII)